In last year’s federal budget, the Department of Foreign Affairs saw its spending cut by $170 million. But Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird made sure his cherished Office of Religious Freedom went unscathed.

With its official launch last week, you can also be sure that it will generate some controversy in Ottawa and beyond, as well as inside the government.

Not much is known about this initiative, which was announced during the May 2011 federal election campaign, other than its aim of promoting religious freedom around the world and shining a light on religious persecution.

Don Hutchinson, vice-president for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, would like to see the new ambassador for religious freedom, Catholic scholar Andrew Bennett, play a role in screening prospective refugees and immigrants fleeing religious persecution. “It’s very important for us as a nation to have an understanding of religion and the communities where we are establishing relationships [in order] to accept refugees and other immigrants,” he told the Globe and Mail.

But as Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Tuesday before the Ahmadiyya Muslim mosque and community centre in Vaughan, Ont.: “Dr. Bennett will monitor religious freedom around the world, he will promote it as a key objective of Canadian foreign policy, and Dr. Bennett will help ensure that the protection of religious freedom informs the policies and programs of the government of Canada.”

It’s hard for anyone to oppose combating violence against religious minorities and championing the cause of religious freedom worldwide.

Last year, we watched with horror the brutal killing of Christians in Nigeria’s largely Muslim north, the blatant intimidation of Christians by a right-wing Hindu group in India, and the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

But is it a good idea to inject religion into the conduct of our foreign policy?

Not everyone is sold on the idea yet and some wonder whether there is an ulterior motive here. Will the Harper government push hard to advance the rights of gays and lesbians in those countries where they face persecution or discrimination on the basis of religious doctrine?

Will the government’s promotion efforts be restricted to Coptic Christians in the Middle East or North Africa? Or will it be limited to religious minorities in Iran (such as Baha’i followers) or other “unfriendly” countries? What about discrimination against Sikhs, Buddhists and Shia and Sunni Muslims?

Even Amnesty International Canada has expressed reservations about the idea and wondered about the secretive nature surrounding its evolution. The head of Amnesty in Canada, Alex Neve, was quoted in a 2012 Canadian Press story as saying: “It’s an area obviously where governments need to tread carefully. They need to do so in ways where they don’t — either intentionally or unintentionally — convey a message that some religions are preferred over others.”

Others, of course, worry about whether the Harper Conservatives will use the office for political reasons — that is, to curry favour with religious or ethnic communities who favour the Conservatives. Such an office, then, could be used to solidify this vote (especially evangelical Christians) and to even extend its reach into other immigrant communities in search of votes.

One suspects that Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, a staunch Catholic who is responsible for outreach in ethnic communities, is a major driving force behind this initiative. This could open the new office, however, to a charge of being Christian-centric and thus ill-advisedly preferring one religion over another.

Arguably the biggest brake on the office comes from inside the government. Some at the Department of Foreign Affairs are wary, especially of the prospect of raising the thorny subject of violations of religious freedoms with many foreign governments. By raising it in government-to-government discussions, they argue, it has the potential to poison bilateral relations.

And by singling out countries for criticism, it could complicate other diplomatic, security or economic concerns. It could also lead to charges of selectivity or even hypocrisy, if it were to shine a light on one religious community and not another, leaving Canada open to criticism over how indigenous peoples were abused in the past by religious denominations in Canada.

While the amount of money earmarked for the office is relatively small ($20 million over four years), some argue the money could be spent more wisely elsewhere in the department (which is now selling off valuable diplomatic offices in prime locations like London). Some point out that the department already has a long-standing bureaucratic unit or working group that deals exclusively with human rights concerns.

It’s not clear how Ottawa will operate this foreign policy objective. Is Canada, for example, going to impose economic sanctions against China for persecuting Catholic priests or mistreating practitioners of Falon Gong? I hardly think so.

It’s hard not to be skeptical about this office. You couldn’t be faulted for thinking the office is more symbolic or electorally motivated. In the absence of sufficient buy-in from Foreign Affairs, it is not likely to have much of an impact anyway.

Peter McKenna is professor and chair of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.